Hansraj vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5182 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017206]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 334/2023

Hansraj S/o Sh. Sardara Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Anoopgarh,
Presently R/o W.no. 04, Jaat Colony, Gharsana, Ps Gharsana,
Dist.    Sri    Ganganagar,       Raj.     (Presently        Lodged    In   Jail   Sri
Ganganagar).
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.        Padma Devi W/o Sh. Papu Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/
          o 8 Mld A, New Mandi Gharsana, Sri Ganganagar, Raj.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr.N.K.Sharma.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
For Complainant              :     Mr.Love Jain.



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                   JUDGMENT

24/05/2023

The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has

been filed by the appellant against the order dated 22.2.2023

passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar in Cr.

Case No.62/2023, whereby the bail application filed by the

appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.25/2023 registered at Police Station Nai Mandi Gharsana,

District Sriganganagar, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of

IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.

[2023/RJJD/017206] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-334/2023]

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned

counsel submitted that the prosecutrix is a married matured lady

of 38 years. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant who is

aged about 40 years was in consensual sexual relationship with

the prosecutrix.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR dated

23.1.2023, learned counsel submitted that the FIR has been

lodged after about 6 months of the alleged incident without

furnishing any explanation for the same. Learned counsel

submitted that admittedly, the appellant was owner of brick kiln

where the prosecutrix worked as a labourer. Learned counsel

submitted that the prosecutrix had ample opportunities to disclose

the fact with regard to she being sexually assaulted by the

appellant to her co-labourers or family members.

Lastly, it was submitted that the FIR has been filed by the

prosecutrix to rope the appellant in the false case when the

relations between them turned strained. Learned counsel

submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody, challan has

been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time,

therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-

appellant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant have vehemently opposed the appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the

material available on record.

[2023/RJJD/017206] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-334/2023]

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on

merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the

appellant on bail.

Accordingly, the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act is allowed. The order dated 22.2.2023 passed by learned

Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar in Cr. Case No.62/2023 is

set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellant- Hansraj S/

o Sh. Sardara Ram shall be enlarged on bail in connection with

FIR No.25/2023 registered at Police Station Nai Mandi Gharsana,

District Sriganganagar, provided he furnishes a personal bond in

the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to

the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance

before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and

when called upon to so.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations

made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of the instant

appeal. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)